Mary P. Koss, Feminist Rape Apologist

Koss influences a government entity to erase male victims of rape.

Mary P. Koss insists on a definition of rape that conceals the incidence of female-on-male rape;

The center for disease control (CDC) is a government entity charged with serving the entire public and all citizens of the United States equally;

There is an appearance that Mary P. Koss has by her association with the CDC influenced it to formulate findings in a way that favors one group of citizens over another, that in fact significantly disadvantages the second group of citizens;

Anyone in a position of public trust, including any position supported by public funds, has a responsibility to prevent her or his private opinions from compromising the mission of the organization she or he serves to serve all citizens equally;

There is an appearance that rather than preventing her personal opinions from compromising the mission of the organization she is associated with, she has allowed those personal opinions to influence the function of that public entity.

DISCUSSION:

Mary P. Koss is a widely-quoted feminist writer on the incidence of rape. Her methods and her claims have been controversial. In 2009 a controversy developed around a paper of hers – articles and threads here, here, and here.

She is an influential writer on the subject and her methods and results deserve scrutiny.

In a post earlier this year commenter Tamen noted a tendency in Koss to minimize the scope and incidence of rape of males, especially by women. He said at the time:

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”

He goes on to point how she chooses terms that emphasize or exaggerate male agency and minimize or trivialize female agency. He finishes by noting a paragraph in which she recommends a formulation of “rape” that is gynonormative, such that if the crime does not involve penetration of the victim, it is not rape. The effect if not the intent is to erase the crime of rape by envelopment.

Later Tamen noted a similarity between Koss’ position and the one reflected in the CDC’s formulation of rape in its NISVS 2010 Report. In the course of pursuing the matter with the CDC (the text of his correspondence with the CDC is at the end of this post.), and getting a dismissively tautological and circular answer, he stumbled across a piece of information that may bear on the similarity in positions he had noted.

This is the history of association between Mary P. Koss and the CDC he found:

2003- : Selected to direct the Sexual Violence Applied Research Advisory Group, VAWNET.org, the national online resource on violence against women funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2003- : Member, team of expert advisors, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on teen partner violence

2003- : Panel of Experts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on scales to measure intimate partner violence, resulted in the publication of CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005

2003-4: Consultant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005 IPV Compendium on assessment of sexual violence and inclusion as recommended standard assessments in the field of two Koss-authored assessments (Sexual Experiences Survey-victimization, and Sexual Experiences Survey-perpetration)

Again, Mary P. Koss is entitled to hold any personal opinions she chooses, however odious. She has, however, no right to use her position of trust to impose these personal and private opinions on public policy or results of research intended to form that public policy. Furthermore, public entities with which she or anyone is associated have a responsibility also to ensure that the barrier between private and personal opinion and public policy is maintained and safeguarded.

If this were simply an isolated instance of one person misusing her position, it would be a small matter and simple to correct. It is however part of a larger consensus and pattern of distortion of evidence and erasure when it concerns male victims of rape in general and especially male victims of female rapists.

CDC’s response to whether they will categorize “being made to penetrate someone else” in future reports (self.MensRights)

submitted 2 days ago* by Tamen_

I had a mail account failure and forgot/missed that I a year ago sent this mail to the CDC:

Hi,

One finding of the NISVS 2010 Report which was not reported anywhere in press releases and media (as far as I could see) was that 1.1% of men reported being made to penetrate someone else the last 12 months. That 1.1% of women reported being raped the last 12 months puts this into a perspective which goes very much against common beliefs about male victimization.

Was this finding not interesting or conclusive enough to at least mention in press releases?

The lifetime numbers differs more. Did CDC look into why there was such a difference in lifetime prevalency numbers and numbers for the last 12 months for male victims of “being made to penetrate someone else”?

Will future CDC Reports continue to keep “being made to penetrate someone else” as a category separate from rape or will they be put together/seen as the same as in the new FBI definition of rape?

Best regards, Xxxxxx Yyyyyy

A week later I got the response (my emphasis):

Mr. Yyyyyy,

Thank you for your interest in the NISVS Survey. The NISVS subject matters experts have provided the following information in response to your inquiry:

We understand your concern that the 12 month prevalence for Made to Penetrate was not included in the press release. Unfortunately, due to space limitation in a press release, we were not able to highlight many of the important findings. This information, however, was included in main summary report. In addition, we are currently working on preparing a number of more in-depth reports to follow our first summary report, including one that focuses specifically on sexual violence.

With regards to the definitional issues you mentioned, Made to Penetrate is a form of sexual violence that is distinguished from rape. Being made to penetrate represents times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone else (i.e., the perpetrator) without the victim’s consent. In contrast, rape represents times when the victim, herself or himself, was sexually penetrated or there was an attempt to do so. In both rape and made to penetrate situations, this may have happened through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm; it also includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

In summary, rape victimization constitutes times when the victim is penetrated. Made to penetrate are incidents where the victim is forced to penetrate their perpetrator, so does not meet the definition of rape.

Appendix C on page 106 of the report lists the victimization questions. As you will see, the questions were asked in such a way that the perpetrator was the one being penetrated by the victim in made to penetrate cases, not a third party. For example, “how many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to make you have vaginal sex with them?” Or “how many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to make you perform anal sex, meaning they made you put your penis into their anus?” Or “when you were drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your {if male: penis}?”

The FBI definition of rape does not apply here – made to penetrate as we have defined it is distinct from rape and should not be included in a definition of rape.

Until the special reports are available and/or the data set is ready for public use, if there are additional specific questions we can answer, we would be happy to do so. We appreciate your interest in these data.

Sincerely, CDC NISVS Team

Apparently they thought my question about whether “being made to penetrate someone else” would be categorized as rape as per the FBI definition which was revealed shortly after the NISVS 2010 Report was published was due to my inability to read the definitions of rape and “being amde to penetrate someone else” in the report itself.

Apparently it is self-evident for them that it’s not rape and hence they are perfectly aligned with Mary P Koss recommendations (“It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman” page 206 in the full article) also in future surveys and doesn’t plan to align the definition with the “new” FBI definition of rape – which can and in my view should be interpreted to include rape by envelopment.

I know that that paper on how to measure rape prevalency by Mary P Koss has been cited by CDC in other contexts (Reference 7).

2003- : Selected to direct the Sexual Violence Applied Research Advisory Group, VAWNET.org, the national online resource on violence against women funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2003- : Member, team of expert advisors, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on teen partner violence

2003- : Panel of Experts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on scales to measure intimate partner violence, resulted in the publication of CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005

2003-4: Consultant, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Intimate Partner Violence compendium, 2005 IPV Compendium on assessment of sexual violence and inclusion as recommended standard assessments in the field of two Koss-authored assessments (Sexual Experiences Survey-victimization, and Sexual Experiences Survey-perpetration)

No wonder it’s self-evident for the CDC that it is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Edited for readability and quote-fixing

Edited again: The title of course should be: CDC’s response to whether they will categorize “being made to penetrate someone else” as rape in future reports

An impressive article on a subject that has had MHRAs on the defensive for too damned long. The more articles of this nature we can assemble and publicise, the more the idea that women collectively are on the moral high ground, and men collectively on the moral low ground, becomes utterly indefensible. And with ever more people recognising that reality, the relentless advantaging of women at the expense of men (by legislators and others) will become equally indefensible in time. Thank you. I look forward to future pieces.

i have been watching your channel on YT a while, nice to see you here posting, keep up the good fight, you make the feminists look like sexist fools on a regular basis (amazing work) and best of luck with your political goals
R.

Rog, thanks for the kind words. As the weeks go by, I keep asking myself, what’s stopping MHRAs establishing political parties in countries other than the UK? What’s the worst that can happen? A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Significant donations only started to arrive when I announced the establishment of the political party, and that got the media interested too (including 10 BBC radio interviews in three weeks). I wish I were as good on radio as Paul Elam was with the Toronto reporter not long ago, but hey, you do what you can with what you have, and when you have batshit crazy 20-something feminist harpies screeching and cackling…

The important thing is to get the message out there. We’re threatening the livelihoods of politicians in the incumbent party in power, whichever one of the equally anti-male parties that is. The Conservative party – the leading party in the coalition – is David Cameron, a feminist. What dysfunctional times we live in.

If you have an interest in forming a party outside the UK, and wants to exchange some thoughts on the matter, please feel free to email me at mb1957@hotmail.co.uk. Thank you.

Given the prevalence of gender feminist spawned, rape witch-hunting in American society today, is it statistically possible that “one out of one males” will be witch-hunted in some form in his lifetime – as shown in “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu If the taxpayer funded, feminist toady CDC has its way, it appears likely, IMO. Put that in your gender feminized stats CDC. :-/

That’s a lot of dancing the CDC did to exclude rape by envelopment from the definition of rape. The successful narrative here is that the penis is the ultimate offender. Whoever’s got the dick is the rapist. It took a long time for feminism to take control of the public perception of rape and it will take even longer than that to dismantle it and show the world that men can be victims of rape by women too.

JinnBottle

Thank you, Jim, and welcome to AVfM.

‘“It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman”.’

Where O where, would houserats in ballroom clothing be without that loathsome term, “appropriate”? I’ve written about-and-against that prissy little fuckass word time and time again for 15 years now.

What I found is that “appropriate” and its derivatives are the words of choice of those who have appropriated – as has Koss-cum-CDC, the definition of “rape”.

Koss? Fuck you.

tallwheel

Basically, ‘It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who was raped by a woman’.

Alex Cockell

Originally written, or words to that effect, by Koss in 1984.

Mr. Sinatra

Hey Koss?
Yeah, as a man who was raped by a female (read she forcibly had me penetrate her) why don’t you go and fuck right off, m’kay?
There’s no way I can be nice about something like this.

“Mary P. Koss is entitled to hold any personal opinions she chooses, however odious. She has, however, no right to use her position of trust to impose these personal and private opinions on public policy or results of research intended to form that public policy.”

Has anyone challenged the reasoning for the different definitions? The CDC states flat-out “Made to penetrate…does not meet the definition of rape.” Has anyone ever given a reason why rape is defined so? If so, could someone provide a link or point me to where said justification is recorded?

So the march is on to codify separate more thoughtful and lenient laws, but only for women.

So much for feminists and their big lies about being for equality.

Theseus

So…….If I, through force or the threat of violence, make a woman take of her clothes and perform oral sex on her while fondling her breasts, that’s not rape right? What’s that? Oh, it is! Silly me, I forgot; since I’m a man there is a totally different set of standards that apply.

Any unwanted kissing or “sexual touching” from little boys; that’s rape. A woman (or women) forcing a man to have sex with her under the threat of violence; that’s not rape. Got it!

Yes,yes, feminists want rape to mean whatever they want it to, whenever they want it to, in any given situation. Apparently rape is a chameleon, a mutating gene that evolves and adapts at the drop of a hat, and the only criteria we need for rape is if a woman says it is or not.

onca747

Thanks Jim for that illuminating article. The most insidious part is, if a woman forces a man to have sex against his will, then by Hitler P. Koss’ standard, it leaves the door open for *her* to accuse that *him* of rape.. and there ain’t shit he could do about it. Evil, vile woman.

Yaaay – another polyglot amongst the contributors here. What languages do you speak, sir?

Grumpy Old Man

Jim, this in my opinion is some of the most important work to be done and thank you for you for doing it. It is precisely these Feminists that undermine our institutions who do great damage and often do it under the radar. Salute!

Nicely done Jim and welcome to the fold.
I can not fathom how these women consider themselves to be moral or ethical.
How they can turn a blind eye to a crime this heinous is beyond me.

Near Earth Object

“I can not fathom how these women consider themselves to be moral or ethical.”

I doubt very much if they do, Danny. I think it highly unlikely that they think in these terms—
in a conventional sense—at all. Morals, ethics, the truth…all can be a great hindrance during a time of war.
My sense is that they will utilize morals—ethics, to manipulate and shame, be it directed toward a male, or a female.
Just my sense, given my experience.

We error, when we project our cherished values onto feminists.
We put our self at an extreme disadvantage if we expect decent behavior from feminists.

Near Earth Object

“How they can turn a blind eye to a crime this heinous is beyond me.”

Different eyes see different things
Different hearts beat on different strings

Neil Peart
Great Canadian Philosopher

KeanoReeves

Let me add another fact. If a man is raped and gets a kid, he is liable for child support!!! That is the current situation “for the good of the child”. The woman, being pregnant is given a pass – for the sake of the child.

What if the raped man is a minor? Child support has to be given by his father or guardian till he is 18, after which he has to pay child support. Ofcourse, dad can recover child support he paid to his grandson, from his son, by filing a civil suit!!!

Thanks everyone who said nice things. Remember that it was a commenter of mine, Tamen, who did all the real work that constitutes the article.

I hope this article is of actual concrete help. When you are trying to clean up a situation it’s important to identify who is causing problems. If we want th addres the rape situation – erasure of male victims, rape hysteria, misuse of female victims to destroy men – the first order of business is to get honest people in the discussion. and the first step in that is to identify who is honesty as opposed to who is working off some agneda, and what that agenda is, without any concern for where that inquiry leads.

So if there are parallels between the rape hysteria we see today and the KKK’s use of rape accusations to terrorize balck men, we need to point those out and damn anyone who takes offense at the parallels or the criticism. And if acknoewledging male rapae victims threatens anyone’s sense of masculinity and need for a facade of invulnerability, damn them too.

MGTOW-man

More proof on top of proof already that apparently women—at least the ones we have allowed to be in charge of new rules for everyone—operate from a emotional/feelings-skewed perspective on reality, which is bad and of course, unacceptable.

If we are to really win this thing, how are we going to do so by refusing to call an ace of spades exactly what it is:

Men’s and women’s brains are hardwired differently. Women’s are far more prone to be and exhibit emotionality. (This is on top of the social conditioning aspects for men and women). How is it that we see such huge examples of emotionality coming from women, but somehow miraculously think is has nothing to do with women being more emotional—and to be a leading cause for women to concoct such outrageoous claims as what this article conveys?

How about all the laws that are so obviously unfair to men and serve to benefit women only in so many ways? Could it be that women are satisfied with a catawampus “balance” because it makes them FEEL better, thus tolerable, when their dormant, rational side absolutely says “no way”?

How long are we going to ignore the elephant in the room? No one wins by ignoring the elephant. Period.

Here is something we can do to circumvent and indeed head off the problem:
Tell/teach the boys that women are not to be trusted until you are absoluteluy sure they can be trusted. Explain to them why? Use examples we see here everyday to inform. Heck, use examples from your own daily lives if the shoe fits. Once they make sure certain women can be trusted, then be alright with them.

Boys must be taught to not let the feelings of women “blind” them to the real reality that exists completely free of opinions and feelings which can and does distort perceptions of reality, which in turn generates unfair/biased “resolves.” The proof is all around us! What else could be the culprit for women starting, supporting, tolerating so many goofy laws?

Our boys are the key to slowing feminism to a slow crawl, then once in check, seek to disempower women who are just too emotional to lead and make group-rules.

I truly believe this fair. We should leave no stone unturned. We did not start this fight, but we certainly have a right to win it.

Tell boys they will be equally loved and thought of a real men if they do what smart boys will do and scrutinize women correctly. Look before they leap…and if they do not like what they see, then DUH, for crying out loud, DO NOT JUMP IN!..no matter what!

It is better to have nothing than to have the wrong thing. It is better to be alone than to have someone you wish you hadn’t ( and who says a male that sees the truth about women HAS to be alone anyway?). It is better to be honest with oneself than it is to lie and do it anyway just to fit in, be liked, and thought of as a “man”. Besides, there really is more to manhood than deferring to women(others) to determine men’s worth.

I do not have boys, but if I did, you can bet everything you own, that I would teach my boys to outsmart feminism even if they abstain from women altogether. Men are going to have to have a “suffrage” of their own. Winning without sacrifice isn’t possible.

We need to quit pushing the boys to being unwitting accomplices for feministic destruction of all that we know.

In a world where everything has changed, why should males be the only thing that hasn’t? Change males and you change the world.

I dug and dug to find out how the gynocentric definition was initiated. It smelled of feminist hate, but they covered their tracks too well and I could not find the source.

You sir are a true investigative reporter. Please remain active in this movement. We need that nose of yours to ferret out the track of the feminist enemy, as she skulks the halls of power, spreading her poison.

So then here’s a new one for you – “gyronormative”. it menas ot spin and spin and shift the goalpsots and mischaractierize your opponents and thier positions and refuse to acknowledge your own statements made in the past. It is basically a Cluster B behavior.

Patrick DiSandro

Something I’ve wondered for a bit…
If feminists want a definition of rape where ‘rape by envelopment’ isn’t rape, well naturally that means a man raped by a woman isn’t rape, but it also means a few other things.
It would mean a young boy who has his penis fondled by a man or woman isn’t raped. Still plus column for feminists.
A woman who has her breasts or ass groped also isn’t raped. Afterall, a woman’s vagina isn’t her only erogenous zone. Groping can be considered sexual envelopment. Still wanna pass the law this way?

Feminists want to demonize the penis. A cursory glance and psychology screams the term ‘penis envy’ for this, but that would be subjecting women to a shaming tactic, and we all know only men deserve to be shamed. Extremists will not be satisfied until any act that can be called ‘sex’ that in any way involves a ‘penis’ can and should be considered rape performed by the owner of said penis.

Bryan Scandrett

“It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman. p. 206”
Two people fucking.
If she doesn’t welcome it, it’s rape.
If he doesn’t welcome it, get over it bitch. And feminism is not a hate movement. Sure.

Alex Cockell

I suicidally ate for 30 years due to this type of sexual abuse (fondling etc) from girls. Silenced by their threats to cry rape. I hold Mary Koss personally responsible.

Dirac Drynx

As a feminist, I realize that my points of view are frequently at odds with mens’ rights activists.

However, concerning the categorization of female-on-male rape as not meeting the legal definition of rape by U.S. government law, and instead, put into a lesser “made to penetrate” category. I completely and unilaterally agree with this article’s position on the matter that this is a double-standard that discriminates against men.

However, I disagree with this author’s selection of the CDCs 12-month rape incidence data in order to attempt to create false equivalencies in rape incidence, on the grounds that 12 months is not enough data to be able to be able to discount statistical anomalies.

The CDC’s lifetime data shows a female-on-male rape incidence that is approximately 1/5 that of male-on female rape, and I assert this lifetime trend as being more representative of reality.

However, the lower incidence of female-on-male rape does not mean that male victims of female rapists are in any way less important than female victims of male rapists. Both victim groups should be equally protected under the law, their rapists should be tried under equal duress, and the punishments for convicted rapists should be equal regardless of their gender.

I will be expressing my protest in this matter to the CDC, to Mary Koss, and to others in the feminist community.

I do not know how common this point of view is among feminists, and I realize that what I am expressing may be a minority point of view in my community.

However, I would appreciate if those who are opposed to Mary Koss’ view on the matter regarding double-standards for rape would refrain from characterizing Mary Koss’ frankly shity, unfair, and disingenuous view on the matter as being universal to all feminists. Because I am here, and while I am often at odds with MRAs, in this matter in particular I am in full agreement, and i doubt that that I’m the only one.

Myopia

>However, I would appreciate if those who are opposed to Mary Koss’ view on the matter regarding double-standards for rape would refrain from characterizing her frankly shity, unfair, and disingenuous view on this particular subject as being universal to all feminists.

The nursery rhyme remains intact, girls are made from sugar and spice and everything nice… boys are made from snakes and snails and puppy dog tails. Feminists who remain silent on the views of people like Mary Koss do so because they benefit by proxy from the extreme views she advocates. All women are protected with the biased legal protection that Koss and others lobby for. Until “moderate” feminism shouts down their own sociopath elements, MRAs have no choice but to treat extreme feminism as the norm, and deal with all feminism as a uniform body. There’s no time to sift through every nuanced opinion that every woman holds on every topic.

—
>Because I am here, and while I am often at odds with MRAs, in this matter in particular I am in full agreement, and i doubt that I’m the only one.

Your being here is irrelevant. The lack of empathy third wave feminism shows for anyone beyond the reach of their own breath is stunning. An occasional protest from mild feminists is of no consequence to halting the institutionalized bias that’s going on.

The CDC’s lifetime data is based upon a continuous change of the definition of woman-raping-man, to the point where it’s been considered an non-existent act. Men and women are the same species. Women can be as violent as men. Women can initiate violence as often as men, women can rape as often as men, can prey on adolescents and children as often as men, can kill their own offspring as often or more often than men.

There is no sugar-and-spice on one side and puppy dog tails on the other. Hopefully one day you and every other feminist will get it through your thick heads that nothing will change and nothing will heal until all aspects of society’s ills are dealt with. Men are not the problem, ignorance is. An ignorance knows no gender.

David Pearlman

First, thank you for being here, expressing your opinion and participating in the discussion. This is how civil society works. You deserve kudos for seeking out ideas that conflict with your party line and engaging with them honestly.

Now, I’m going to have to tear your thesis apart. I’m going to frame this using common feminist arguments and talking points regarding patriarchy, only turning those points back on feminism.

What you are saying is “not all feminists.” When someone says “not all men” to a feminist, you know the response. No, not all men, but that doesn’t really matter because of the institutional power dynamic. It’s the establishment that needs to be examined and changed. And besides, even if not all men do it, all women suffer from it.

Well the parallel is perfect. Not all feminists believe that male rape victims are unimportant. But that’s irrelevant, because those feminists with institutional power do. And therefor while not all feminists believe this, all men suffer from those who do. This amounts to a rape culture… feminism in minimizing and excusing the rape of men.

Until feminist institutions get their act together, the “not all feminists” argument rings false.

Well, we have at least two years of CDC surveys in a row showing the 12-month rape/being made to penetrate thing being even. 2010 was the first year, 2011 the continuation in the above.

The problem with the “lifetime prevalence” figure is that it is lower than the 12-months prevalence figure for 2010 or 2011. Lifetime prevalence for something is always higher than the 1-year value or something is really wrong with your survey.

Bora Bosna

“I will be expressing my protest in this matter to the CDC, to Mary Koss, and to others in the feminist community.”
Hah! Funniest thing I’ve heard in a while.
Good luck!
(They will probably ostracize you like they did with CH Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Karen DeCrow, Warren Farrell, Camille Paglia etc.)

IanC

If one female uses an object to penetrate another woman, then by Koss’s definition that’s rape too I guess. However, you miss the main point: that she obviously WANTS men to suffer, by effectively skewing the ‘rape’ figures. Then it will of course always be something that women can play the victim card with, as all the time a woman cannot, by her definition, rape a man, then women won’t be punished like a man would for the same sexual act: rape! So women get to continue seeing, reading and figures published in the media that WILL then make women continue to be victims or rape (as women can’t of course ‘rape’ men under her definition). They will also be able to continue using the word ‘rape’ as something ONLY EVER done to women, as if women don’t commit sexual crimes of any severity against men. It’s a psychological warfare on men to belittle and diminish ANY sexual act that a woman does to a man.

What a dreadfully unfair, unjust society we live in; and feminists claim victim-hood? They claim that women are unfairly discriminated against?
Male suicide being about 80% of all suicides – feminists remain silent;
Domestic violence being roughly 50/50, in over 200 studies – but feminists prefer their own skewed figures and keep trotting them out in the media, but no one takes them to task;
75% of the homeless are men – again silence from feminists;
50% More women entering university (60/40) – no one says much, especially feminist who say they are for ‘equality’;
More girls graduating with degrees than boys too, which is hardly surprising, given that more are entering; but again it shows the imbalance – but of course feminists, even normal women stay pretty much silent;
10 TIMES as many refuge centres for abused women as men – again feminists stay silent;
The number of female, especially feminist journalists in the media far outweighs men, and hence much female perspective media content to forever suppress news about men – yet women talk about inequalities;
Women and family law is grossly unfair to men, but nothing is done and men continue, over many decades, to suffer far more than women;
MORE support given to women into work, even FREE traiing places, where men have to pay – yet feminists stillstay silent;
Far less prison time for females for the same crimes as men – again SILENCE!
So one wonders just what feminist are forever grumbling about, and WHAT exactly their beef is? They are just BLIND to all the facts I’ve stated, which are the MOST important and significant aspects of life. But STILL the feminist movement trundles on, delirious and ‘high’ on what its ‘acheived’. They are addicted to getting their own way and like spoilt kids want forever more, being increasingly spoilt, becoming seriously out of hand and thinking the world must revolve around them!

Sorry but feminism sucks, and women who subscribe to it are just sexist pigs who don’t give a damn about the plight of men. They are immoral and have a mental condition that needs medical intervention!

MrSonicAdvance

Excellent reference article, thank you.

Support AVFM!

Buy on Amazon

Anita Sarkeesian doesn't want you to read this book! So if you hate Anita, then why not irritate her by purchasing a copy?

New on Amazon

Don’t miss one of the most controversial books of our time; the unforgettable novel that will trigger feminists, arouse both men and women alike, and stay in the reader’s mind for weeks after the final chapter.

Crazy Ex? Crazy Wife or Girlfriend? Get This Book!

If you think there is nothing you can do about your crazy ex, crazy wife or crazy girlfriend, then you owe it to yourself to go to Amazon and read the reviews on this book.

Debuts in Los Angeles and New York October, 2016

Available in Paperback

Their Angry Creed: The Shocking History of Feminism, and How It Is Destroying Our Way of Life

Paul’s Corner

Advertise at AVFM

IRC Chat

Also Available at Amazon.com

Being a gay male does not mean you have to get yanked around on a feminist leash.